Actually, the politicians I voted for are grateful someone out there had the common sense to elect them over some social conservative. And they've actually done their part in improving society. Too bad you see that as people catching fish or raising pigs.

Under the 'worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial' provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

And Obama at least used the threat of vetoing the bill to get some changes made.

President Obama initially threatened to veto the NDAA, but then indicated he would agree to sign a revised version that allowed the president to issue such waivers on his own and no longer explicitly banned the use of civilian courts in prosecuting Al Qaeda suspects.

HighOnCraic:TheShavingofOccam123: sammyk: Come on guys. We all know the only important part of the constitution is the 2nd amendment. We wont be 3rd world savages if we torture the guy. What's the worst we could become?

We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?

What if he's not the right guy? I'm not trolling, but without due process to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, we yield to trial by media/internet. It's a dangerous precedent, and short of a confession, it's what this nation needs right now.What if he was only involved with the robberies and shootings Thursday night, and wasn't involved in the bombing? What if it was actually someone else, and actually taking this guy to trial leads to another person being responsible?Don't we have to follow due process on this? He's in custody, his brother's dead, and I'm sure there'll be plenty against him, but that doesn't mean throw out the entire justice process.

Semantic Warrior:What if he's not the right guy? I'm not trolling, but without due process to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, we yield to trial by media/internet. It's a dangerous precedent, and short of a confession, it's what this nation needs right now.What if he was only involved with the robberies and shootings Thursday night, and wasn't involved in the bombing? What if it was actually someone else, and actually taking this guy to trial leads to another person being responsible?Don't we have to follow due process on this? He's in custody, his brother's dead, and I'm sure there'll be plenty against him, but that doesn't mean throw out the entire justice process.

Since they were racially profiled, my guess is that he and his brotherare innocent, and were forced into violence by an oppressive and racist system. A systematic system that systematically chooses the winners and the losers. And if you aren't white, christian, males, you lose.

Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.

You make sense and I can't really muster a logical argument against it. That being said, the whole idea still rubs me the wrong way. But I guess that's my problem.

You do have a few unique and exclusive rights as a citizen.

You have the right to enter the country at any time and remain in the country with no restrictions without requiring a visa.You have the right to accept legal employment without requiring a visa.If you are 18 years or older you have the right to vote in all elections.You have the right to advice and protection within the law from the State Department and US Embassies and Consulates overseas.In most cases, any children born to you anywhere in the world are eligible to claim US citizenship.

As far as the rest is concerned, such as due process of law, those fall under human rights and the principle isn't about giving rights, it's about following judicial procedure deliberately and carefully constructed to preserve said human rights.

It's also quite practical as human trafficking is a major and truly brutal crime that would very likely become a plague if the victims had no legal protection. Anyone with even a shred of decency should be willing to hand out any and all legal protection to those victims if for no other reason than to provide a means to get their hands on the inhuman monsters who practice that vile trade.

The_Sponge:HighOnCraic: TheShavingofOccam123: sammyk: Come on guys. We all know the only important part of the constitution is the 2nd amendment. We wont be 3rd world savages if we torture the guy. What's the worst we could become?

We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?

IlGreven:I find it sad that, today, 20 years after the FBI raid on the Branch Davidians, many of the same people who criticize the Clinton administration for depriving the Davidians' lives and liberties without due process would gleefully deprive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's life and/or liberty without due process by branding him an "enemy combatant" and sending him to Gitmo.

I find it just about right. Those people will tell you all day that those are totally different.

DamnYankees:Skeptos: There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?

Correct.

You should be out telling the cops to let the suspect go, on account of how badly they bungled the manhunt. And over interpreting the constitution for Scalia or something. You're unneeded here.

I don't know why y'all think Ol' Lin is stupid, just because he is calling for the courts to do something they can't. He knows that - but his constituents don't.It's a common tactic among politicians with his sort of constituents. He can turn to them now, and say: "See? I CALLED for this turrist to be treated as a foreign combatant! But them thar pointy headed intellechules wouldn' do it!!"It's all win for him, and no real harm done.

jso2897:I don't know why y'all think Ol' Lin is stupid, just because he is calling for the courts to do something they can't. He knows that - but his constituents don't.It's a common tactic among politicians with his sort of constituents. He can turn to them now, and say: "See? I CALLED for this turrist to be treated as a foreign combatant! But them thar pointy headed intellechules wouldn' do it!!"It's all win for him, and no real harm done.

Only until someone introduces a bill that makes it easier to invoke 'enemy combatant' status. When that happens, he's faced with "do I toe the party line and win the next election, or do I do what's right and expose myself as a hypocrite".

/Of course the real answer is 'vote however the lobbyists tell me to and make up imaginary scenarios to justify my vote', but his constituents don't know that.

Natural born citizen only applies to if he can run for president it doesn't apply elsewhere.Anyone accused of a crime by King Obama deserves protection under the constitution.

I hate it when conservatives drop their principles for whatever reason. This guy is a citizen and committed a crime in Massachusetts. he should be tried like everyone else. He is not an enemy combatant. We should do this because that's what U.S. law says. But the added benefit of protecting our own rights. The Obamas, Bushes etc. of the world would love this guy to be an enemy combatant. They can make anyone they don't like an enemy combatant and call in a drone strike against them. Someday when you are taken out by a drone strike for voting Republican, you have only yourself to blame for abandoning the U.S. Constitution and U.S, principles at the drop of a hat. You are a total tool of the left.

GoldSpider:SkinnyHead: If they question him without Miranda, and the court finds a Miranda violation, that wouldn't get him off the hook. It would just mean that his statements could not be used against him. They could still prove him guilty with other evidence.

This may be the first time in the history of Fark you were ever right about anything.

Actually, the politicians I voted for are grateful someone out there had the common sense to elect them over some social conservative. And they've actually done their part in improving society. Too bad you see that as people catching fish or raising pigs.

What you don't like about them is that both are too liberal for you. And that whole "social safety net" thing. Tsk tsk. Stealing your hard earned money to give to lazy bums who won't work. The NERVE of those people.

Was this in reference to something I actually SAID sometime? Or is this one of those responses you randomly pull out of your ass when you can't think of anything else to say?

FlashHarry:Sock Ruh Tease: He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?

Probably for the same reason that everyone who believes that "they need guns to prevents the soon-to-come overreach of the tyranny of the federal government by sending in the military to take their guns" have a tendecy to vote for the people who insist on funneling a large percentage of our GDP into maintaining an overwhelming military (to better take over small militias with guns).

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?

Why are we blaming this only on Republicans when it seems the Obama administration is leading the charge, both with this guy specifically and and in the past as far as attempts to widen the public safety exemption?

You do realize that's totally different than declaring the guy an enemy combatant, right?

Yeah, that's a good point, I shouldn't be conflating the two. But I do think they at least go together, inasmuch as Graham has also expressed support for not Mirandizing him, and that enemy combatant status is a way around Mirandizing like the public safety expression. But, point conceded.

whidbey:Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.

You're couldn't be more wrong. You see when the Democrats took over the white house and both houses of congress, they repealed the Patriot Act in it's entirety. I bet the republicans were hoping that Obama would strengthen it.

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

If I could easily stand, it would be applauding. If you were not a firm favourite (I would bet of many here), I would have the chance to do so. This is absolutely right.

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Missed this JEWEL of a comment until timelady posted reference to it above.

Skeptos:There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?

Yes, which is why our good man Lindsay wants authorities to be allowed to torture him.

This isn't just about reading Miranda rights, this is about old white men to be allowed to do whatever they want to brown people who might not have the same religious beliefs as them.

Amos Quito:Kittypie070: Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Missed this JEWEL of a comment until timelady posted reference to it above.

Most apropos. Bravo.

Extra Catnip and FancyFeast for you, KP.

4/20?

;-)

Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I spoke to you.

the ha ha guy:When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

TsukasaK:the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

TsukasaK:the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.

I don't think Lindsey Graham actually believes this, he's just throwing some red meat to the Republican voters.Remember he's got no say over how this guy is to be treated while in custody.

He's up for re-election next year, and his poll numbers are dropping, largely because a lot of SC republicans don't think he is conservative enough. He talks to democrats and reach compromises. He voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. He is working for immigration reform (they call him "Grahamnesty" down here)... and that has him in trouble with SC republicans. Expect lots of derp from Graham in the next 18 months so he can get re-elected.

There's a decent chance he may get "primaried", and believe me... if you don't like this, you will shudder to see what will replace him.

This is the same state that Gingrich won in the primaries. Gingrich.This is the same state where the governor won because she got Sarah Palin's endorsement... AFTER Palin lost the election and quit as governor.This is the same state where Mark Sanford, the ex-governor that used state money to visit his Argentinian mistress, has a decent shot of being re-elected to his old US House seat in the coming weeks.